Debates of Nov. 28th, 2008

Economic and Fiscal Statement

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that matter is off the table, so with all respect to the member, let me spend the time on the need for an economic stimulus. The need for an economic stimulus is the problem. We cannot wait.

I implore the government members to consider carefully whether we can afford to wait until next spring before we start talking about a ways and means measure or about changes that are going to provide stimulus, whether that stimulus is to the auto sector, to the forestry sector, to the shipping sector or to small businesses.

We have a very serious challenge before us. We cannot wait. Economic lags take time. The members will know that a stimulus might not have impact for at least a year. We have to act now to save jobs, to protect pensions and to protect the savings of all Canadians.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member just admitted that he and his party would take away income splitting for seniors, thus creating a massive tax increase for all seniors.

He also ignores the actions our government has taken to bolster our economy. In the next year we will double infrastructure spending. We have cut the GST to keep prices down for consumers. We have lowered income taxes for working families. We have bolstered our financial institutions by injecting liquidity that they can now loan to small businesses and home buyers.

They on that side are looking to protect their narrow entitlements instead of the best interests of our economy. Why will he not put aside his narrow entitlements and focus on the broader interests of Canadians?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I gave an example of how money spent was not targeted. I never said I would reverse it. The member is notorious for putting words into people's mouths.

The reason we have to give the stimulus is clear, but where it goes is not clear. It should go into areas where jobs will be stimulated immediately, where people will be able to hit the ground now. It should go into infrastructure, into the auto sector. Those sectors are going to lose jobs.

Let us save what we can. Opportunities are there, and we have to take them now. The longer we wait--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Beaches--East York.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed that he wanted a new mandate because he needed to deal with the economy. That is what he told Canadians when he decided to call an election. By the way, it was an illegal election since he broke his own law and then usurped the powers of Parliament. In a parliamentary structure a minority government usually falls because of a vote of non-confidence in it and then there is an election. Parliament was not even sitting at the time he called the election, so a vote of non-confidence could not have happened. The Prime Minister usurped the powers of Parliament and broke his own law. From the start we see the kind of respect he has for Parliament.

After the election the Prime Minister said that we would have a different House of Commons. He said that he would be more collaborative with the opposition. He said there would be a different tone.

We saw that tone last night, a tone which is the same as before. Basically it has come back with a vengeance. It is a bullying tone, one of “my way or the highway”. There is no collaboration. The Prime Minister is totally ignoring the fact that this is a minority Parliament.

One minister said this morning that he never heard Canadians say that they actually wanted a minority government. Therefore, he does not acknowledge there is one because he does not acknowledge what Canadians are saying or how they vote. The Conservatives discount the democratic process in this country altogether.

In yesterday's statement women in this country were again being attacked. Is it not bad enough that the government and the Prime Minister did this in the very first budget they brought into the House? I will get to that in a moment. Let us look at some of the facts.

Women earn on average only $37,000 compared to men who earn on average $70,000. Women earn only 70¢ for every dollar that men earn. Women provide 80% of the caregiving for children and family members. Therefore, they are in and out of the labour force which costs them a great deal in terms of promotions, income and pension buildup over a lifetime. They are therefore poorer when they become seniors and usually are more vulnerable to economic downturns. They are more vulnerable as a whole. Because of this a large number of women need affordable housing, but they are not getting it.

Child care is gone. Most women cannot go to work without a proper quality child care program. One of the first things the Conservatives did was cancel the program.

There is no minister for women in this country. I was at a press conference recently where a member said that she was the first minister responsible for the status of women. She claimed she had no other portfolio, which was not true, but nonetheless she said that. The House leader said in the House that the size of cabinet has not been increased because some individuals are just secretaries of state. I thought they sat around the cabinet table. They go to cabinet meetings and they have an increased salary and extra staff. This was reiterated by another Conservative member in answer to a question. We do not have a minister. Today in the House she was not allowed to answer any questions on the issue. We do not have a minister responsible for the status of women in this country. Maybe the minister, if she is a minister, should resign and give her salary back to Canadians.

The Prime Minister might want to consider that women would like to have a minister to look after their issues.

The Prime Minister has an agenda. He knows exactly what he has wanted to do from the start. His first objective when he came to power was to strip the cupboard bare and spend all the money. That is what Harris did in Ontario. When there is no money left in the cupboard, the Prime Minister will say that there is no money so services have to be cut. Who pays the price when services are cut? The people who need the services the most: women and seniors. Housing and infrastructure programs suffer as well.

This has been a specific determined approach by the Conservative government from day one. Right off the bat, as soon as they got here, the Conservatives started to cut programs for the most vulnerable. They cut the literacy programs. How many wealthy people need literacy programs?

The Conservatives took the word “equality” out of women's equality, which is counter to the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights, which says that women are equal. However, that is not happening so we need a program.

The government says that child care is not needed and that women do not need it to go to work. During the election I met a woman in my riding who broke down and cried in front of me because she could not afford child care. This was a woman from a middle-income family, with a home, a mortgage and a couple of children and she was spending about $1,300 per child on child care. She could not afford that amount but could not find a space elsewhere. No spaces were available. She broke down because her choice was to leave her job, which she did not want to do because she needed the income.

I know of another woman who had to leave her job and her partnership position, which meant she was lowering her income, to stay at home with her ailing mother. She had to somehow become self-employed. This goes back to women providing care and losing economic power. These women have no housing and no child care.

When we talk about infrastructure for the cities, the government has been talking about $33 billion for a long time but I have not seen a cheque go to the cities. The $33 billion, by the way, is not even real because, if we break it down, only about $1.5 billion are actually from the government. The rest of the money was there from the previous Liberal government. The Conservatives just keep recycling it and re-announcing it all over the place.

Where are women in this country? Nowhere. They do not exist, not as far as the government is concerned. In fact, it is doing everything possible to bury them further and hurt them as much as it can. I do not understand what the problem is.

We know that emptying the cupboard and cutting services was the government's objective from the start. It was not a secret. It happens constantly with all the budgets that have come through here.

However, the Conservatives did not get the majority they wanted in the last election. I truly believe the Prime Minister wants another election because he thinks that if he goes to the people and tells them how bad everybody else is and how badly he needs it now in order to put the economy back on track that he could get his majority, which would then give him the power to do as he likes with the country, with women and with social programs where he can tear down, take apart, leave the cupboards bare and make the cuts that he so badly wants to make. He has even started to politicize the judiciary. He has voted non-confidence in Elections Canada in the House. He has started breaking down our systems, our democratic structures, but he cannot finish the job and do it well because he does not have the majority that he wants. He has people like us objecting and getting in the way all the time. He needs an election so we are not in the way anymore and he can do what he really wants to do to the country.

He called an election because he wanted the majority so badly. He had no platform. He never said what he would do. He only introduced his platform in the very last couple of days, after the debate, because people were asking where it was. However, it said none of the things that he is doing now.

As I said earlier, he broke the law and usurped the powers of Parliament all because he wanted this fabulous majority to do as he wanted. Now he is trying to force another election because he does not want to invest in Canadians. He could do it. Nothing prevents the government from coming forward with an economic plan that would address our economic downturn and deal with the crises that this country is facing and will face.

I have seen other prime ministers in the past do it. Lester Pearson, one of our most famous prime ministers, brought major reforms to this country in two minority governments, major social reforms that we still enjoy today.

However, the present government does not want to do that because it is not interested in co-operating nor in building. The Prime Minister wants his majority so he can actually tear down. Right now nothing prevents the Prime Minister from coming into the House with a proper economic plan and proper programs to help Canadians who are losing their jobs or are about to lose their jobs, to help women and to invest in research, health, technology, green jobs, into anything. Anything would be helpful and anything would better than nothing.

There is no way I can support this kind of behaviour in the House and no way that I can support the government's intentions.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech from the hon. member, and following that, her comments about squandering a surplus. Only a Liberal would think that paying down $37 billion in debt is squandering the surplus.

There was talk for many days in the House about a contingency fund. The Liberals continue to harp on the fact that there was a contingency fund set up. However, there never was a contingency fund legislated in the House. Admittedly, it was in a budget bill.

I would like to ask the hon. member if she will be confident enough to defeat this government that has brought tax savings to Canadians, go back to her constituents, and tell them she is back knocking on their door because someone wanted to take her entitlements away?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was talking about earlier, that kind of attitude. It is contempt for people in the House. The member would not raise that if he were being honest with himself.

The fact of the matter is that the sanctimonious approach does not work. The reality is that the Conservatives' tax cuts and their programs have helped those who already have lots of money in this country.

Let us talk about the $5,000 savings. How many Canadians at this time will have $5,000 at the end of the year, especially middle income Canadians who are suffering already? How many will have $5,000 to put aside per member of the family, so it could become $20,000, $25,000 per family? The women I spoke to earlier will not have that kind of money.

The Conservatives should have been investing in people. They only looked after the people they thought might vote for them. This was part of their agenda to try to get their fabulous majority, which they missed last time and they are hoping to get it next time. Their attitude about entitlements and all that is quite disgusting. Those hon. members should take a look at themselves in the mirror when they wake up in the morning and see what good they have done for Canadians today.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. She mentioned how this statement is failing women. One of the things we were looking for, and I have the document in my hand, is to actually reform EI. As we know, women are not able to access the EI fund at the rate as others.

This morning it was actually a former Conservative candidate who said that the best way to stimulate the economy directly right now is by providing more EI assistance for workers, and particularly women.

I would like to know what the hon. member thinks of that because the infrastructure is set up. All the government has to do is help people access the fund, and get the money to them so they can spend it in their communities. We did not see it from the government and we do not think we will see it from the government. I want to know what she thinks about that.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. There are many things that we need to do for women, certainly maintain the pay equity but also with respect to EI. EI has been reviewed a number of times. In fact, when it was set up, it was to be reviewed every five years to see what unintended consequences it might have with respect to some of the different recipients across the country.

Women are most disadvantaged with respect to EI at the moment. Therefore, it does need to be reformed. It does need to be expanded to include and assist women who are losing jobs and will be hit hardest by the economic downturn. Self-employed people, for instance, are not part of EI at the moment, and they should be. Many of them are women. EI needs to be reviewed and needs to be changed. The hon. member knows that is something for which I have advocated and would support.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I wonder if the member would agree with me that we should send a telegram to the President of the Treasury Board, who this morning bragged about 41% of the public service being female. Fifty per cent or more of the population is female. We should send him a telegram if she agrees.

Second, the minister responsible for the Treasury Board said that the cost to the litigious process of getting pay equity rights effected was $4 billion. He may have misled the House, because their own document said--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Beaches—East York, a very quick answer, please.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is typical of what goes on all the time. Now we have the correct information about the settlement, and it indicates the full extent to which women are losing out. Pay equity was intended to help them catch up, to be able to have a normal life, to raise their families, and to be recognized for their work. They are part of our economy.

However, that is not happening. The government is doing the exact opposite. Pay equity is being eliminated in this country, and women’s rights are going out the window.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans.

It is a pleasure to rise today in the debate on our government’s economic fiscal update. The world is experiencing an unforeseen and unprecedented global economic slowdown. As a result, Canadians are making hard decisions to ensure that they are ready for the future. They are making hard decisions to ensure that they will have the money to pay for their children’s education and for their own retirement.

This government is also making some hard decisions to keep its house in order so that these tough economic times shall pass.

On Thursday, we heard the Minister of Finance tell Canadians that we are taking concrete action to ensure responsible fiscal management and effective government. This action includes measures to keep spending under control and focused, as well as measures to modernize our institutions and the way they do business. Canadians expect no less from their government.

As part of this commitment, the Minister of Finance announced that our government will be introducing legislation to ensure predictability in federal public sector compensation.

In this country we are fortunate in having one of the best public services in the world. Public servants work in more than 200 federal organizations. They work in dozens of different occupations, from border guards to food inspectors and from public health specialists to diplomats.

It is important to remember that public servants are paid by the Canadian taxpayer. It is important that the government lead by example and tighten its own belt before it expects Canadians to do the same. That is why our government will introduce legislation to ensure that public sector compensation remains reasonable and affordable. This legislation would put in place annual public service wage increases of 2.3% for 2007-08 and 1.5% for the following three years. Our government is ensuring that pay for the public sector grows in line with what taxpayers can afford.

This restraint will apply to all public sector employees, including members of Parliament, senators, cabinet ministers and senior public servants. Our government is also ensuring equitable compensation in the public service. This will bring much-needed reform to our complaint-based pay equity regime, which has proved to be a lengthy, costly and adversarial process that serves neither employees nor employers well.

We should be especially proud of the progress toward greater gender balance in the public service, particularly within senior ranks. It is worth noting that back in 1983, fewer than 5% of women were in senior management positions. Today women make up 41% of senior and executive ranks of the federal public service. Women are taking their rightful place in the federal public service.

They are not only taking on top jobs, but their representation in many groups has also increased dramatically over the years. For example, women now represent nearly 60% of knowledge workers. They also represent about 50% of the economist group and 40% of the commerce officers group.

It is safe to say that over the past two years, there has been a significant change in Canada’s public service, and women have played a big role in that change. Today, the public service provides women and men with equal access to all positions and with identical wages within the same groups and levels.

I am proud of the example we are setting for both private and public sector organizations around the world. I am aware that the situation is not perfect, but remarkable progress has been made in addressing the wage gap between men and women in the federal public service. Since 1999, the difference between total wages for men and total wages for women has been decreasing steadily.

Given this situation, and given the need to ensure that the strides women have made in the federal public sector continue to be maintained, the time is right to put in place a more modern approach to pay equity.

We need to take action to put an end to the long and drawn out court cases of the past. It is worth recalling that the last court ruling on pay equity was in 1999 and at a cost of about $3.2 billion, a settlement that took a gruelling 15 years to achieve. We cannot afford any more repeat performances like that. Public service employees deserve better. Taxpayers deserve better.

Next week the government will table legislation that will ensure such court cases will become a thing of the past. The legislation is important and I encourage every member of the House to support it. We need to move on. We need to replace the existing complaints-based pay equity regime that has left us with a lengthy, costly, adversarial process, a process that does not take into account the realities of the new Canadian labour market.

I note with encouragement the developments over the past two weeks, which has seen the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the country's biggest federal public sector union, withdraw two pay equity complaints through a negotiated settlement with the government. The fact that we are able to come to a negotiated settlement on two important pay equity complaints is another strong sign that the time is right to move forward with a more modern approach to equitable compensation.

Moving to an approach that is based on collaboration with bargaining agents rather than the current adversarial process will ensure pay equity issues are addressed as they arise and that problems are resolved expeditiously.

The legislation the government will introduce will give us a more modern and collaborative approach. It will help us rid the current system, which is archaic, onerous and just plain unfair to employees. However, all these important measures are already being threatened by an opposition that is more interested in lining its own pockets than by leading by example. Just as Canadian families and businesses are doing, the government should show prudence and restraint.

In this global economic instability, supporting the legislation is the right thing to do. It is what Canadians expect. Most important, it will ensure prudent and responsible use of tax dollars and it will protect the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. It will ensure that women and men continue to benefit from quality working conditions in Canada's public service.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions on pay equity and I suppose it is fair to say that if the response is to wait for the legislation, then that is the response. However. there were too many forceful statements made in the House, particularly by the President of the Treasury Board, which leads me to believe the legislation has been reviewed. The hon. member who spoke on the topic must have some knowledge that there will be a change.

The language in the document talks about getting rid of litigious, adversarial and complaints-based approaches to ensure that gender is not a discriminatory factor with respect to paying people what they are worth.

The minister responsible said that the cost of litigation was $4 billion. The document itself said that the equity settlements were $4 billion.

Would the hon. member agree with me, as his own documents imply, that the $4 billion went to make more equal pay to women who do equal work to men in the workplace and not to the costs of litigation and the adversarial process? If his answer is he does not know, I will accept that with respect.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for listening and for reading the government's submissions because that is very important.

I was not intimately involved in the process, but what I read and what is in the government's documentation is partly what he said, that the almost $4 billion was the settlement, but what he left out was the fact that it took 15 years.

I understand the hon. member is a lawyer. Having some knowledge of some of the costs of litigation, lawyers tend to work, at least in the smaller communities I live in, for about $100 to $150 an hour. I suspect when we get to the levels in the litigation process we are talking about, we are talking about hundreds of dollars an hour. Over 15 years, my guess is this cost a heck of a lot of dollars.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Conservative member's speech and I see that he has done his homework. And yet I have a great deal of difficulty understanding something. In his statement, he said that an agreement was just negotiated with public service representatives. There were even complaints or grievances with respect to pay equity that were negotiated and two were resolved.

Now he is supporting one of his government's measures, which eliminates employees' right to strike and will impose a new way of resolving pay equity disputes.

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding that a politician would say one thing and its opposite in the same speech. How does he explain that?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing duplicitous about that. It is not contradictory in nature. I said in my speech that a perfect example of how we could get away from the litigious way we had dealt with pay equity would be by negotiation. I used the example of two recent negotiated settlements instead of going to the usual complaints process. Therefore, we are experiencing an example of how well that works. That is what I was talking about.

In my previous occupation I had occasion to work with many women who received equal compensation for equal work. That was right and that was fair. In fact, in my speech I referred to some of the top positions in the federal civil service. I believe over 40% are now occupied by women. Yes, we should be aiming for 50% to 51%. It should be equal, and we are moving to that.

Also, the Ontario provincial police had its first female commissioner. Therefore, I think society is moving along at an accelerated pace and the government intends to see that continue.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first allow me to congratulate you on your election as a chair occupant in this 40th Parliament. I know the experience will be rewarding and you will find table officers to be of great help, especially those two, and the people of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock are proud of you.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West for sharing his time with me. I am proud to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Ottawa—Orléans, whose servant I am, in support of the government's economic fiscal update.

This government believes in Canadians and their ability to succeed. We believe in removing barriers to prosperity and success by making government more efficient and more effective. We believe in providing taxpayers with programs and services that give them value for money.

In the throne speech, which the House passed yesterday evening, we sketched a broad outline of our strategy to protect the financial security of Canadian families and businesses during this period of global economic instability. Our program is very objective. Fiscal restraint and good government are just two ways we can support our economy during these uncertain times. We have committed to ensuring responsible spending during this fiscal year and those to come.

We promise to continue to keep spending in check, to practise restraint and to look at every dollar we spend with a critical eye.

As the finance minister told us, we will not spend now to tax our children and grandchildren later.

The current economic situation has also heightened Canadians' appreciate for what is required. They see that we need a fiscally responsible government and a competitive economy to protect our families and our communities. They expect us to be prudent in spending their tax dollars and they are looking for us to deliver.

Canadians understand the need for belt-tightening in tough economic times. They see that taking a responsible approach to public sector compensation is even more critical during a time of economic uncertainty and tight fiscal circumstances. They understand that this economic crisis, which has come to us from beyond our shores, will require sacrifices close to home.

As part of our government's plan to stabilize the economy, we have said that grants, contributions, capital, wages and other operating expenses all will be placed under the microscope of responsible spending. Indeed, we have delivered.

Last week, in response to a question I asked, the President of the Treasury Board announced that we had reached an agreement in principle on compensation with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents over 100,000 federal public service employees.

Shortly after that, we reached two compensation agreements with the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, one for the translation group and the other for the economics group.

All of these agreements include pay increases of 6.8% over four years, which is reasonable during these difficult times. These agreements are in line with our financial framework and our policies.

The public sector unions have recognized that we are in difficult economic times. I am confident that we soon will be able to put the negotiations behind us and face our economic challenges united.

However, given the urgent need to ensure predictability in public sector compensation overall, it is reasonable and responsible for the government to consider all options in order to achieve this. We need as much predictability in our compensation structure as possible during the current uncertainty. That is why we will be tabling legislation to set future increases in rates of pay in the public sector. By this, I mean the entire federal public sector, senior public servants and parliamentarians included. This means us.

This legislation will control increases in rates of pay across the federal public service and limit the growth of the public sector payroll.

We are demonstrating clarity and foresight by adopting this approach to government payroll management. Taken together, these agreements in principle and our legislation are examples of responsible outcomes in public sector compensation. They are fair to employees and affordable for Canadian taxpayers. They will serve Canada well as we face uncertain economic times.

This approach is about sharing the load. It is about balancing recognition for our highly respected public sector employees and the valuable jobs they do to serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The government understands the significant contribution that these employees make every day to the high quality of life in our families, in our communities, and so do I.

Our approach to controlling the growth of public sector compensation is about making the government more effective by spending responsibly on the right priorities. It is about practising restraint, just like any household would do in tough economic times, and reaping the rewards later. It is about compensation that is fair to employees and fair to taxpayers. That is good for the government, good for taxpayers and good for Canada.

All government members understand that Canadians are going through tough economic times.

Parliamentarians, public servants and public service unions all have a role to play in ensuring fiscal restraint during these difficult economic circumstances.

Our disciplined approach recognizes the urgent need for predictability in terms of compensation costs across the federal public sector. During this time of global economic uncertainty, it is important that all governments start at home and tighten their own belts. Our government is leading by example, something that the opposition clearly does not understand.

I hope the opposition will stop with its heightened rhetoric and partisan games. Canadians expect us to work together to get them through this storm.

These measures are responsible and prudent. They are what Canadians expect from their government. They are what Canadians expect from us. It is my hope that the opposition will come to its senses and support these important actions.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to looking out for the benefit of Canadians. Much discussion has taken place on the issue of gender and how women suffer a great deal as a result of the government's agenda.

Not only are we seeing the systematic roll-back of the battle related to pay equity, but we are also seeing threats to the more general area of the rights of workers, in which women are affected as well.

However, I also note the fact that as a result of the lack of a stimulus package in the government's agenda to deal with this economic recession, once again women will suffer a great deal. Where is the investment for affordable housing? Where is the investment for child care? Where is the investment for education? All these factors affect the well-being of women and all Canadians, and we see nothing from the government.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the hon. member for Churchill to this House. I appreciate her passion for these issues. As she gets to know me, she will understand that so do I.

This government is doing things for women and we are doing things at a rapid pace instead of getting them entangled in years and decades of litigation.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for a most eloquent speech. We have always known that he is very eloquent but that was well worded and well delivered and I congratulate him on that. I would like to second his suggestion that he is very passionate about women's issues, about his constituents' issues, which leads into my question.

I know the hon. member represents a part of the greater Ottawa region and would in fact then represent a number of public service employees of this government.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

They will remember.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I could actually hear over the heckling on the other side of the House, I want to ask the hon. member if he has not heard positive comments from the fact that there is actually some stability, and in fact these public servants are willing to shoulder some of the positive moves that we want to put forward.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have heard from the public servants of Ottawa--Orléans and from the greater national capital region, and they are willing to do their share, but not if we do not. They expect us to do our share first, and if we do, they will pull along.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa—Orléans has a great deal of experience in the National Capital Region. I have a real problem with his speech. He politely and candidly states that the government just negotiated an agreement with the Public Service Alliance. I am wondering about the following. How can he support a change by his government that eliminates the right to strike for major unions when they are open to negotiating, as he himself said? How can he support that? I will repeat that I have a great deal of difficulty with a politician who would say one thing and its opposite in the same speech.